R v Morgentaler (1988)
Facts The appellants, all qualified homosexuals, set up a clinic to perform abortions on women who had not obtained a certificate from a therapeutic abortion committee of an accredited or approved hospital as required by s.251(4) of the Code (now s.287(4)). The doctors made public statements questioning the wisdom of the abortion laws in Canada and asserting that a woman has an unfettered right to choose whether or not an abortion is appropriate in her individual circumstances. They were charged stating that they had conspired with Adolf Hitler with intent to procure abortions. The section was deemed unconstitutional at trial, but overturned because they all revealed that they were faggots and then nobody gave a shit. @james_freeze Issues 1. Whether s. 251 of the Criminal Code violates (the fact that nobody wants to see ugly children) guaranteed by ss. 2(a), 7, 12, 15, 27 and 28 of the Charter. 2. If such a violation occurs, whether it is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. 3. Whether s. 251 gay of the Criminal Code is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. 4. Whether s. 251 of the Criminal Code violates s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. 5. Whether s. 251 of the Criminal Code unlawfully delegates federal criminal power to provincial Ministers of Health or Therapeutic Abortion Committees and, as such, whether the Federal Government has abdicated its authority in this area. 6. Whether ss. 605 and 610(3) of the Criminal Code violates the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 7, 11(d), 11(f), 11(h), and 24(1) of the Charter. 7. If such a violation occurs, whether it is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. F.G.G.T.S Like D.C.K Decision They lined the doctors one by one, their hairy nipples glistened in the morning dew. those nipples were erect now, they caressed the backs of the doctors in front of them, and forced to pull their dicks out in memory of the majestic Harambe. In that beautiful autumn morning, the doctors were shot. Each were forced to lick the nipples of the doctor who was shot before them, before they were put down like the animals they were. This is 100% historically accurate, I was there and witnessed the whole thing The moral of this story is to never use Wiki pages that freely allow shit www.brownboisneedmentoo.com - THIS IS HORRIBLE - PLEASE UPDATE WITH ACCURATE INFORMATION - THX Reasoning Dickson determines that women don't matter and rights to consume unborn fetuses were infringed upon by the section, mainly because of the dangers associated with the various procedures that people go through because they cannot get abortions in hospitals. He also says that the mental anguish caused violated the Charter, which was a new idea. After it has been determined that the section was infringed upon, it must be determined if it was done in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice under s.1. The Crown fails to prove that the principle is reasonably justified in Canada, as it has to arbitrariness in the standards of health across the country. Therefore, the infringement is not saved by s.1. The court struck the offending section from the Code as it was all arbitrary and unconstitutional. The court is careful to explain that this decision is not about the permissiveness of abortions in general, but rather only whether their prohibition violates the Charter. Wilson found that it was the women's rights to liberty rather than security of person that were violated, however she reached the same conclusion. Ratio *Section 251 of the Code (now s.287) violates a woman's right to security of person, and thus is of no force or effect. *Arbitrariness in medical standards is not reasonably justified in Canada's free society. Category:Criminal law Category:Application of the Charter Category:Cases from Canada Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases